Replies

In logic they call what you are doing an argument from ignorance. No insult intended. That's just what they call it. We don't know that Isaiah didn't also run a brothel and a strip club.

Your logic is what we call appeal to extremes. Your governing premise is that you can't find specific examples of an event recorded for every prophet then it didn't happen for every prophet.

I showed you a reasonable example of a day to day occurrence that isn't listed in the Bible either, but we can reasonably assume the event happened.

You then go to the extreme with an example about Isaiah and space ships in order to keep your argument alive. You all but admit to this with your, "Well, you might say, that would be inconsistent with what we do know about him." statement.

If you can't swallow your own examples, don't expect me to either.

Prophets receiving heavenly visions and visitations is supported by your own words, "would be inconsistent"

Because it would be consistent with nearly all the prophets. There is precedent for my claim.

Rhetorically, you claim something is true, then you insist I prove the negative, which of course is impossible to do in this particular case.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove your claim that there's an exception to the rule. And more importantly, not everything of importance is recorded among the writings of the Bible. John specifically states this fact.

The problem with your logic in regards to God, is that it's not real. You approach it as an academic exercise. As theorycraft, with no real world application. I see this a lot.

The burden of proof has never shifted. It's always been on you because I have the stronger case. I have precedence on my side. If five people make this statement:

[5 Witnesses] I went to the DMV and got my driver's license.

And then a sixth person says, "I got my driver's license too"

It's no stretch or fallacy to assume that the sixth person went to the DMV too.

Therefore, with nearly all the prophets claiming to have seen God, I can with reasonable assurance say that this event is a hallmark of being a prophet.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative.

Yes, you are.

I'm asking you to prove your claim that there's an exception to the rule.

There is no rule. You can't try for an exception until you establish a rule, and you have failed to do that. You are confusing factual observations with rule formation. My belief is you need there to be a rule, I suppose to support the claims of the Mormon prophets to a monopoly on the prophetic role, and so like the Mother Ship just beyond the Sun, you ask me to imagine there is such a rule. But in fact you are just listing off Bible stories where a prophet had a vision, and I'm listing back to you stories of those prophets who didn't have such a vision.

There. Is. No. Rule.

God acted in each case as He saw fit. God is sovereign. He can do prophecy however He likes, and His record to us shows He likes to do it different ways. Your alleged rule is purely an invention of human imagination. Nothing more.

Anyway, at this point, I feel us going shortly into an infinite loop, and I am happy to leave the matter to the jury.

All the best.

Peace,

SR

Therefore, with nearly all the prophets claiming to have seen God, I can with reasonable assurance say that this event is a hallmark of being a prophet.

Any fool can claim this.

(Many fools have.)

The Book states thusly:

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 King James Version (KJV)

²⁰But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

²¹And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

²²When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Merely IGNORED